Comment: India’s intelligence, police force part of the problem

It is fine to accuse the Pakistani Army and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of complicity in the recent attack by a small army of selected targets in Mumbai, but this overlooks the responsibility of Indian intelligence agencies to prevent such attacks by militants. Those who criticize the ISI are ignoring the recent revelations in Indian newspapers that “clear warnings of a coming assault were ignored” and “that Indian intelligence agencies had precise information at least 10 months ago that Pakistani militants were planning an attack” but failed to act. Read more of this post

Mumbai attacks a plot to shift Pakistani troops from tribal areas

A commendable article has appeared in The London Times, articulating the theory that  the small army that has attacked selected targets in Mumbai in the past few days has been part of a calculated ploy with a twofold operational mission: (a) “to provoke a crisis, or even a war, between the India and Pakistan”; and by doing so (b) to divert Pakistan’s attention from its Afghan to its Indian border, thus “relieving pressure on al-Qaeda, Taleban and other militants based there”. Such a scenario is strategically plausible, in the sense that it would clearly alleviate the two-sided pressure (from Pakistan and Afghanistan) that al-Qaeda currently faces, thus allowing the group a higher degree of flexibility in Pakistan’s tribal border regions. [IA]

.

British nationals among Mumbai attackers

Reports in the Indian media state that at least two “British citizens of Pakistani origin” were among the small army that has attacked selected targets in Mumbai in the past few days.  The source of the information is apparently Indian Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, as has been confirmed by the Associated Press. In a related development, the head of Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani intelligence service, is preparing to visit India to assist in the investigation of the Mumbai attacks. It is not clear when exactly General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, will b e leaving for India; but if he does indeed go, it will be the first time that the head of the ISI will have visited India. [IA]

.

US airstrikes now deep inside Pakistani territory

We have previously reported on the alleged US-Pakistani high-level agreement, according to which “the US government refuses to publicly acknowledge the [US missile] attacks [on Pakistani soil] while Pakistan’s government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes”. The Associated Press now reports that “for the first time Wednesday, the missiles targeted militants beyond the tribal areas, deeper inside Pakistan”. What is more, Pakistani militants have caught on to the secret deal and are now threatening to retaliate by attacking Pakistani government targets. Taliban militant leader Hafiz Gul Bahadur has warned that he will abandon a 2006 peace treaty with the Pakistani military and that his men will “launch suicide attacks on foreigners and government targets unless the raids stop”. One of his representatives said on Thursday that “the Pakistani government is clearly involved in these attacks by American spy planes, so we will target government interests as well as foreigners”. The immediate US objective in launching airstrikes on Pakistani soil is to sabotage the intention of the Pakistani and Afghan governments to strike a deal with the Taliban. All three sides so far resist reverting to all-out war. But if the US strikes continue (which they probably will, even if Pakistan withdraws its current tacit consent), the US objectives are likely to be achieved. [JF]

.

US strikes in Pakistan part of secret deal

Ever since the United States began to engage in systematic military incursions and airstrikes against perceived terrorist targets in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has been vocally criticizing the Bush Administration for its “counterproductive” methods, which do not help “meet the objectives of the war on terror”, in the words of Mohammed Sadiq, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman.

 

Now a new report by The Washington Post has disclosed that the US airstrikes and military incursions are in fact covered under a secret US-Pakistani high-level agreement, according to which “the US government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan’s government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes”. Under the deal, the US government is said to have temporarily halted ground incursions, but regular airstrikes against targets in Pakistani territory have intensified.

 

Although this report will be denied by the Pakistani leadership, it rings accurate and is substantiated by the long and telling history of US-Pakistani security relations. It essentially signifies the continuation of the fundamentals of these relations, which appears to have remained untouched despite the recent change of guard in Islamabad.

 

The obvious ironic element in this development is highlighted by the recent comments of Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardary, who candidly —and accurately— stated that the US strikes on Pakistani soil are “not good for our position of winning the hearts and minds of people”. Time magazine reports that “[o]pinion polls routinely show that an overwhelming majority of ordinary Pakistanis oppose US actions inside their country”. Yet “[t]he government has to respond to public sentiment, leading to harsh, uncompromising language from political and military leaders”.

 

This new development must not terminate the debate about the legality of the US military actions inside Pakistan. Even if the Pakistani government has authorized these actions, they still constitute extrajudicial assassinations. The latter are not justified by their reported sanctioning by the country’s elected regime. Nevertheless, this latest repot strengthens the increasing consensus of observers that, despite the recent change of guard in Islamabad, it is still business as usual in Pakistan’s relations with Washington. [JF] 

.